The Noble Pundit

Quick Links

Sorry about the lack of posting today. I had to work, go on a job interview (I'm likely going to be changing jobs in the next few weeks, finally), and got a couple of comments that I am having trouble getting past (not you Thomas).

Reminder about the comments. Call me what you will, use whatever invective or overwrought rhetoric you will, just keep it clean and don't expect me to respond to ad hominem attacks in which you never really address the point of the post. I like rational debate and don't mind people disagreeing with me. Just don't expect a whole lot when the basis for your argument is that I am clearly uneducated and insane. Tell me something my friends haven't already told me. But enough on this before I ramble on all night.

Here are tonight's quick links:

Fake Catholic church ordered by judge to tell the truth - I'll bet that someone, somewhere is screaming "Freedom of religion!" Sorry, but the ruling here seems entirely reasonable.

Iran leads Islamic world's nuclear quest - Aren't you glad that the leaders of Iran are just such peace loving thugs that we'll never have to worry if they build the bomb? </sarcasm>

Schwarzenegger transition team heavy on business, tax conservatives - California is in a fiscal crisis. I'd hope that Arnold had more business and tax people than social engineers.

The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed - For being nearly 65 years old, it seems to be rather accurate about the threat of radical, revivalist Islam.

Values outsourced: What are the social costs of the Wal-Mart economy? - A look at the effects of Wal-Mart, not in the business arena so much as in the socio-economic one. Obviously biased against Wal-Mart, but it does have some interesting points to consider.

Fiduciary Irresponsibility

As I'm sure that most of you are aware, I worked for several years as a stockbroker. As a broker, one of the most important concepts we had to keep in mind was the idea of fiduciary responsibility. Boiling it all down, it basically came down to the idea that because of our position it was very likely that we knew more than the client about investing and financial matters (which was true) and as such, we had a responsibility to ensure that any actions taken by the client were consistent with their needs, requirements and goals. A breach of fiduciary responsibility was a serious offense (and it was treated as such by the regulators).

So I always am interested when I see some finance company promoting an idea that seems to run 180 degrees contrary to most everyone's needs. CNN/Money has a great article about the Home Equity Lines Of Credit (HELOC) which are one such creation in my opinion.

I noted a week or so back that people were really starting to take on way too much housing debt. Yes, it is really what has kept the economy going over the last few months, but that still doesn't mean that it was a wise decision for many of these people. Now, with the HELOCs, companies like Wells Fargo are making it even easier to tap the equity in your home for whatever purpose you might want: travel, home improvement, education, dinner, groceries, fries from McDonalds. For whatever reason you deem necessary, you can put your house at risk for foreclosure.

Most people probably never realize that. They see the little VISA logo on the card and think that everything is hunky-dory and that it works just like the VISA card they got from Citibank. It never occurs to them that the whole reason they got that massive credit line is because it is secured by the equity in their home. It never occurs to them that if they fail to keep up the payments, they could end up living in the cardboard box that their shiny new refrigerator came in.

Do you think that Wells Fargo or any of the other HELOC companies are emphasizing that point? No. They may mention it in passing; it may be in the fine print, but they're going to be spending much more time selling the prospect on the ease of use of this card when they need that hot dog and Slurpee.

As I see it, that's promoting a financial product that is likely not in the best interest of the client. In other words, a breach of fiduciary responsibility. Are there times when an HELOC might be appropriate? Sure, but buying designer clothes and lunch from Wendy's are not two of them.

The finance companies are beginning to make a big push to remind people of how easy it is to use these HELOCs. They are trying to make more from merchant fees and interest charges, which are good for the company, but they're doing it at the expense of the financial well-being of their clients.

The HELOCs will not be the downfall of Western Civilization; they won't even push our economy into recession. But they are not the ideal solution for everyone. They have real and significant risks to people.

And those risks need to be made clear, much more so than the ease of buying a Slurpee out of your home equity.

Quick Links

Bush's grandfather was director of bank seized by government for affiliation with Nazi-funding German industrialist - I love political hit pieces. They couldn't make it stick for Arnold, so they try to label Bush as a proxy Nazi. It was one share. And it was Prescott Bush, not Dubya. The sins of the grandfather should not be visited on the grandson.

German Press Review: Buy Moscow, Ignore Berlin, Punish Paris - Divide and conquer. Still works like a charm. I do love how even the Germans are now accusing their EU compatriots, the French, of saving face instead of standing on principle.

Kach Sites Blacklisted In U.S. - Of all the various hate sites out there, we pick four Jewish sites to ban first?

Report: Saudis funded infiltration of U.S. military - Isn't it wonderful to have friends like these?

Peace With Egypt Getting Colder - As if it were ever truly warm to begin with.

Give them libertarianism, and a moving van - I like the idea, but do you really have to move to New Hampshire?

What Atheists Want - Is this like the question What Women Want?

Islam, The Veil, & Tolerance

I know that sometimes I spend a little too much time harping on the problem children and misfits of Islam. Usually I do this in the context of discussing Israel or one of the theothugocracies of the Islamic world - Iran and Saudi Arabia are generally the two main targets.

But in doing so, I always try to bear in mind that there is a reasonable and rational segment of Islam that doesn't want to blow people up, drive the into the sea, decapitate them, push tall walls on them, or throw rocks at them until they die. I know that I can make the distinction within myself mentally, but sometimes it is nice to see an actual affirmation of the tolerance, understanding, and logic emanating from the Islamic world.

As I'm reading along today, I came across an article from Islamicity.com which discusses the role of the veil in Islamic society and deplores the fact that many nations are outlawing it. But unlike many articles of a similar vein, this one does not go into abject whining and complaining that many of others do. This article actually makes a reasoned and reasonable argument for allowing the veils. I don't necessarily agree with the position, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a well-constructed argument.

I also found some of the insights in the article to be very observant. I was particularly interested in the observation about secularism in France vs. the religious foundations of the US and UK and how those two competing philosphies seem to play into the degree of tolerance shown towards the Muslims in the repective countries.

Too often, we look only at the evil side of Islam. This an example of the flip side of the situation. It's refreshing to remember that there are good people out there.

More Box Cutters On Airplanes

Al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups have long had an interest in using aircraft as weapons. The FBI and Homeland Security Department have issued numerous warnings about possible tactics terrorists could use, including use of small carry-on items such as cameras to hide bombs powerful enough to blow up airplanes.

Wow. These guys are good. Without their guidance I never would have made the connection between 9/11 and Al Qaeda's fetish for using airplanes as weapons. And without their warnings, I never would have thought that something as small as a camera could be made into a bomb that could bring down an airplane (obviously, I know nothing about Pan Am 103 and the radio in the suitcase or anything about the concept of overpressurization, nothing at all). </sarcasm>

This is important, but not unexpected or surprising. We knew that security wasn't perfect. We knew that the Feds really weren't doing a much better job than the private security contractors. This episode simply proves out the point.

The problem isn't necessarily in the topside security - what you and I see every time we wait in line, take our shoes off, and deal with the clueless, robotic yo-yos at the security checkpoint. Those guys actually put on a pretty good dog and pony show and are relatively effective.

No, the problem is in the lax security of the illegal immigrants working for the catering and cleaning crews. The problem is in the lax security of the cargo going on the flight. The problem is in the weak security surrounding the mail going on each flight.

I'd almost be willing to put money on it, that this was an inside job, pulled off by a concerned member of a cleaning crew (yes they do exist, despite the empty peanut bags under the seat in front of you when you board) to point out the laxness in security as you approach the airplane from the airside. When I worked at the airport, it was simply amazing what could, and did, get through. I'm sure that security has tightened up some since then, but it is still going to be more lax than upstairs by an order of magnitude. Someone is trying to warn TSA that they need to get their act together before some Al Qaeda wannabe pulls this off.

But of course TSA and the FBI are reacting in exactly the wrong way. They've decided to search every single airplane by the end of today. What they needed to be concentrating on was finding out what message exactly was intended to have been sent and why. Terrorists are not going to go after Southwest Airlines as their primary target, the airplanes are too small (they're 737s) and they rarely are leaving with a full fuel load. The explosive potential just isn't in a Southwest 737 like it is in a transcontinental 767 for United or American. This is a message, not an attempted highjacking.

Someone needs to find out why it was sent.

Love The Security In The New $20

Well, it looks like our new redesigned and supposedly better $20 bill isn't quite all it's cracked up to be. Two men in Utah were arrested last night while in the process of counterfeiting the new bill in a hotel room. They were caught after a clerk noticed that the counterfeit bills weren't real and the morons paid for a room at that hotel anyways.

Now that sounds like the bill did its job right? Wrong. They were able to pass them off as legit:

Counterfeit bills with the same serial number as the bill on the scanner have turned up in Riverdale, Ogden and South Ogden.

One of the biggest problems with the printing of currency is that people are always looking for a way to make a quick buck. No bill is completely counterfeit-proof and no bill ever will be. Scam artists can always find a way to work around any new security feature.

I'm just surpirsed that these two were able to get working on this so quickly. I still haven't even seen the new Monopoly money, except on commercials and advertisements superimposed on football fields.

I wonder how long before the next redesign?

Standards Vs. Fiat

Sorry if this post has any spelling errors. This computer doesn't have a spellcheck on it and my skills are sometimes suspect at best. I'll run it through Word when I get home this evening.

Mike Northover has been filling in for Michael Williams over at Master of None, and he's been doing a pretty admirable job, I must say. One of his favorite topics to blog on seems to be economics, which of course causes me to stop and read.

In one of his posts last night he makes the statement "I'm a big fan of the federal reserve, and the fiat monetary system that we have in place..."

I'll agree that the Fed has performed it's job very well given the tools it has at its disposal. The Fed trying to steer the economy is like me trying to steer a car down a steep mountain road full of switchbacks, while blindfolded and having beat a sledgehammer against the tires to make the car turn. It's not an easy task, and Greenspan and the Fed deserve a lot of credit for not sending us through the economic woods.

But I have to disagree and say that the fiat monetary system is not a wonderful idea. The risks associated with it are enormous, and the benefits pale in comparison.

The fiat system is based on the "full faith and credit" of the government issuing the cash. This is wonderful if you have relatively responsible people in charge of the economy and the printing presses, as the US has since Bretton Woods. But what if you get someone irresponsible or ill-informed about how the economy works?

One of the biggest problems with the fiat system is that there is no restraint mechanism in place. With the gold standard there was always the requirement to acquire more gold to back the currency. With the fiat system, the presses can run 24/7 just printing, printing, printing and there is nothing immediate in the system to make it stop. In fact, it becomes a self-sustaining inflationary cycle.

In the immediate short term, printing more money has some outstanding benefits for the government. They can use that money, backed only by the government's faith that it's good, to pay for more social programs, to pay for more infrastructure, or any goofball measure they may come up with. Politicians get a short term boost, the economy gets a short term boost, and everyone is happy. Right?

Not exactly. In the intermediate to long term unless that money is taken back out of the economy, usually by cutting spending somewhere or by raising taxes, we enter a situation where we have too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. Prices begin to rise, which leads to higher wages, which leads to more money chasing the limited supply of goods and services, and so on and so on and so forth. Welcome to the vicious wealth-sapping inflationary cycle.

Think it can't happen to us? It happened to ancient Rome. It happened to Weimar Germany. It has happened to almost all of the South America nations at some point. What makes us so special as to be exempt from the effects of an inflationary economic implosion?

Nothing does. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because we have had people in office who upheld the faith portion of the fiat system. We have had people in office who acted responsibly. But what happens if the economy stays stagnant or even starts to regress again?

The lure of easy money might become too much for many politicians. We could very well end up with a "reformer" getting elected. If things are bad economically, many people who don't understand the basis for the fiat system may accept or even embrace the idea of simply printing more money to pay for economic stimulus. It would never occur to most people that an inflationary or hyper-inflationary cycle brought on by irresponible printing would destroy our fiat monetary system by destroying the faith portion of the backing.

How easy might it be to rapidly increase the money supply in clandestine ways? Try this on for size: we are now going onto our third variation of the $20 bill in the last, what, 10-15 years? Now, I believe that the Fed is taking the old $20s out of circulation and destroying them, just like they should. But if they didn't, this would effectively triple the amount of $20 bills availble. Add that to each denomination and that would be a massive influx of new, inflationary pressuring cash entering the system. And many people wouldn't notice right away, as it could be hidden under the guise of improving monetary security.

The fiat monetary system is very similar in a way to the concept of communism. They are both wonderful, utopian theories that ignore the realities of human nature. Just as you will eventually find a slacker leech in a communist society, you will eventually find an irresponsible economic leader in a fiat monetary system. Just as the slacker destroys the faith required to maintain a perfect communist system, the irresponsible economist destroys the faith needed to maintian the fiat monetary system.

The ideal, though unwieldy, solution would be to return to a system of gold and silver coinage. With that, we would have an ability to immediately determine, through specific gravity testing, the quality of the money being presented and can make valuation determinations based on the purity and quantity of the metal being offered. It also has the benefit of tying the government to an absolute fiscal responsibility as the only way to mint more money would be to obtain more metal.

Gold and silver certificates are a compromise solution. In theory they are backed by a specific quantity and fineness of metal, but in reality, the government can print more certificates than they have metal to back. This is again due to human nature. Even in the midst of a run on the metal, not everyone would attempt to redeem their certificates. The number of non-redeemers is a number that can be calculated and predicted, just like the number of no-shows for an airline flight. Using that information, the government can exceed the limitations set by the metal backing, to a point. But at some point, fiscal responsibility is still forced upon them by the backing requirement.

Since Bretton Woods, the US has really dodged a bullet. We have had responsible people in positions of power who did everything they could to protect the full faith and credit of the Federal government. But do we really want to base our future on making the right decision every single time? Or do we want to have a system in place that is resiliant and allows for correction of errors in judgment?

The fiat system requires perfection. Mistakes cannot be made or else the whole system collapses. And that is not a good situation for something being run by humans or politicians.

Quick Links

Vichy mentally ill patients 'were not murdered' - Let's see malnourished, "eating their own hands and books, causing stomach ruptures and death." Nope, nothing there that might resemble murder.... Sick, just sick.

Top U.S. General Says Muslims Worship 'Idol'; Islamic group calls for Reassignment Over 'Extremist' Views - Gee, General Boykin is a Christian, one who truly believes in his faith. He lives it and lives by it. He has learned and he follows many of the spiritual lessons of his faith. In short, he is a true, believing Christian - and CAIR wants him reassigned because of it. Bet they'd be ok with it if he prayed facing Mecca five times a day, yet many Christians would see that as extremist. So where do we draw the line?

France Threatens Libya!

I'll bet that old Muammar is just shaking in his boots at this one:

French President Jacques Chirac urged Libya on Saturday to reach a deal on a UTA payout or face the consequences.

This is rich. France, the military behemoth, is threatening Libya, a nation trained in the tactics of terrorism, with "consequences." Will they talk the EU in to attacking Muammar with the dreaded "scowl of disapproval?" Or will they threaten to cut off relations with Libya? Or perhaps they could figure out a reason to threaten Libya with a NATO (read: US) invasion? What are these mysterious consequences? Does Chirac even know the meaning of the word?

Well, ok, he probably does after the American tourist boycott, but does France really have that much control over the potential tourism industry in Tripoli? Will TotalELF quit paying their bribes on the oil contracts?

Sorry, but Chirac and UTA are coattailling on the Pan Am 103 settlement here. With 103, a real timeline was put together, showing each of the steps involved, each of the people involved and how it all tied Libya into the ultimate destruction of the plane over Lockerbie. With the UTA bombing, it has always been generally accepted that Libya was likely involved, but the airtight case like was made for 103 doesn't seem to exist. There are holes, there are questions that still need to be answered.

And from all appearances, Chirac and UTA know this. If they had a solid and convincing case against Libya, they would be presenting it. Instead, they seem to just be taking a wild stab at extorting more money from the Libyan government simply because they paid more for 103, than they were willing to pay for the UTA bombing, which they have never admitted to and for which they were making restitution only in the hopes of trying to normalize their position in the world.

If this were a normal or initial negotiation, I might feel more strongly about Libya needing to stick with one issue. But this isn't normal. This isn't the first go around. France is trying to up the ante, after the cards have been played.

That's wrong. And as such, if Libya has decided that they want to link this negotiation for more money with another situation in which Libya feels it was wronged, well, that's their right and this is a justifiable point at which to exercise that right.

Also, aren't negotiators supposed to be impartial? The lead French negotiator had his father killed in the bombing. He stands to personally profit financially from any extra extortion from Libya and emotionally if he can "punish" Libya even more.

Sorry, but I got to take Muammar's side on this one.

Sharon Thanks The Christians

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made an appearance at the opening of the Christian Feast of the Tabernacles and thanked evangelical Christians for supporting Israel during the terrorist bombings, rising tensions and the apparent detour on the road map.

One thing that we never seem to see enough of from anyone today, and from world leaders in particular, is gratitude like Sharon is showing here. Too often, politicians seem to take their supporters for granted and never seem to give them the simple, honest "Thank you" that is all most of them want in return for their efforts.

Most Christians who support Israel are driven by a couple of motives: respecting the common bond between Christianity and Judaism and/or because we feel it is the right thing to do.

Israel is more than a friend, they are like a cousin. They share similar values, a similar history and the Old Testament. Are there differences? Sure. But we can generally view things through very similar lenses, making understanding and empathy with the Israelis much easier than it is with say the Palestinians, with whom we share very little commonality.

Christians also tend to support Israel because we know, as an established fact through practice, that the Israelis will allow us, and even welcome us, to practice our religion freely. We also know that they extend that same courtesy to the Muslims in Israel, which tugs at our religious desire to see everyone treated fairly and equally before the Lord, no matter what the name we may call Him.

Rannan Gissan, spokesman for the prime minister, said, "We don't have many friends around us in the world. It gets quite lonely there. And when you're at the head of the column, you always want the soldiers to tap you on the helmet to know someone is behind you. Your coming here is tapping on the helmets of all the Israelis who are standing in the front lines for freedom, for prosperity, for western society."

OK, it's more than a simple "Thank you," but the basic premise is still the same. The Israelis are acknowledging and showing appreciation for the friendship of the Christians during these troubling times.

It is a simple, yet powerful, gesture.

Boeing 757 Line To Shut Down

This is very disappointing to me. Boeing has decided to shut down the 757 production line, due to a lack of orders for the aircraft.

When I worked for Delta, the 757 was, by far, the best narrowbody aircraft to work on. More often than not, what it could carry was limited by cargo volume, not weight. In the entire time I was doing load planning for flights, I can only recall one 757 that ended up being weight restricted. That airplane, like the 767-300 variants, could carry just about anything that was dragged out planeside.

The 737s always seemed to be weight restricted, the McDonnell Douglas MD-88s were a balancing nightmare, and the Lockheed L-1011s were falling apart along with being temperamental and difficult to balance properly.

But the 757, oh did Boeing get it right with that one. Roomy cargo bins so that you didn't scar yourself (something I did in an MD-88 - and a 767-300ER for another airline), easy to load, and almost impossible to get out of balance, even if you tried (and I'd play around with extremes in trial balances, just for fun. The 757 almost never went out of balance.).

I know that I'm partial to the 757/767 series aircraft, but this really hits hard. I worked 727s, 737s, 747s, MD-11s, L-1011s, MD-88s, Airbus A320s and even a Russian IL-62. But no airplane could hold a candle to the 757 for being able to do its job well, to do it efficiently, and to be friendly to those of us who had to work it. It was nearly indestructible, utterly reliable, and comfortable, both in the cabin and below deck. And the early 757s were already approaching 15 years old when I started there.

The 757 was a great airplane, it's passing is regarded with great mourning from my little corner of the world. The 757 set the standards bar awfully high. Hopefully Boeing will be able to match it again one day.

Priorities

In the World News section:
Middle East: Radical Islamists
Call for Boycott of All
American-Made Products
Except Krispy Kreme doughnuts.

I can buy that. It's hard to resist the little cholesterol rings. The minute they reject the sugar laden, heart attack inducing, Southern delicacy is the day that I finally have to admit that they are no longer rational or reasonable to deal with.

The bad part about this post is that I now have to stop on my way to work tomorrow and buy some KKs. Oh, well.

Holland To Dump The P-3 Orion

Holland has announced that it will be eliminating it's two squadrons of P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft. Germany has reportedly considering an offer to buy 10 of them.

The P-3 is one of the best maritime patrol aircraft that has ever been brought to market. Dumping the two squadrons with no replacements is a very shortsighted move by the Ministry of Defense. Holland has a (relatively) long coastline and the P-3 renowned for its patrolling abilities.

I'm sure that the MOD looked at the current threat analysis and determined that there was very little threat that the P-3 could efficiently counter. But what about in 5-10 years? What if the Chinese do create a real blue water navy that can place a threat a few hundred miles off the coast of Amsterdam? What if the Russians decide they don't want to play nice anymore? What if some terrorist led nation finds the money to buy a real seaborne capability? Do the Dutch really want to place their trust in the French or the Germans to protect them?

This is a short sighted move, with some nasty long term potential consequences.

UPDATE: It looks like the US Navy is thinking about doing the same to its P-3 Reserve Squadrons.

Iranian Fundmentalism Leading To Secularism

The brother of Iran's President is warning the hardliners of Iran that their violent and oppressive fundamentalism increasingly pushing the country towards secularism.

Of course it is. People don't want to live in fear or under the oppressive thumb of a thugocracy. People may be ok with a government based on Islamic ideals, so long as they have rights beyond being virtual servants of the state.

"The constitution is certainly not perfect and needs some updating but still the same constitution could be used as a basis for democracy in Iran if the laws would really be respected and not be individually be interpreted and misused in the name of Islam," Khatami said.

That statement by Khatami almost seems reasonable. I believe that, more than anything else however, it points towards a reformist pressure building in Iran - one that the hardliners cannot contain anymore. The student protests earlier this year really seem to have placed in motion a series of events that are slowly, but inexorably, leading to the eventual downfall of the hardline Iranian regime.

I think now the question is no longer whether the Iranian regime will fall, but what type of government will fill the resulting vacuum? Will it be a true democracy? A republic? A monarchy? Or simply another variation of an Islamic thugocracy?

Only time will tell, but time is running out.

Funeral Museum

Found this one under the heading of "strange news." I got to agree this is strange.

A couple in Fletcher, Ohio is planning to open a funeral museum. Turns out, they bought a funeral home, full of leftovers: casket handles, burial clothes, and other such assorted stuff. So, they've decided to open a museum with all the stuff.

One of my first jobs actually was working at a funeral home. I only did cleaning, paperwork, driving the cars, and watching the place during viewings, but it was still creepy. A funeral museum will not be real high on my list of places to go the next time I visit Ohio.

Personal Retirement Accounts

As I was reading along this afternoon, I came across this article which has done some studies on the benefits of switching over to PRAs in place of total dependancy on Social Security.

I like the idea of PRAs. I believe that giving people options is the right thing to do. Not everyone will take advantage of those options, and much to the chagrin of the socialist crowd, the outcome will not be equal, but such is life. Choice is better than no choice.

I just worry that with studies like these, there are probably some important factors that may lead to the actual results being very different from the theoretical results, giving the socialists anti-choice ammunition.

Using past returns to extrapolate potential future returns is, of course, no guarantee, but it is usually a pretty good indicator, assuming that the macro environment in the market stays close to the same. PRAs, however, would change the market environment. Currently the Social Security money is just sitting there, doing nothing. With PRAs, it would rapidly flood into the market (both the stock market and the bond market) and would distort prices. Dumping a few hundred billion or even a couple trillion dollars into the market would significantly push up the demand for securities in the short term, leading to higher prices and lower returns. This phenomenom would be followed very soon after by a drop in prices as all that demand dried up after the initial establishment of the PRA accounts. Ultimately, a few people would lose some money in the whole settling out process, which would lend a false credence to the anti-PRA crowd.

The long term gains in retirement funding would far outstrip the short term pain from the settling out gyrations. The hardest part is going to be making it through the short term.

We need the PRAs. We just also need to be sure that we know all the potential pitfalls involved before we get started.

"Temple Mount Is More Important Than Peace"

When I first read the headline on this story, I cringed. I'm not one generally given to extremeism and this seemed to be crossing that line. But after reading it, I absolutely agree with the premise.

The Temple Mount is, most certainly, the most important piece of religious ground in the world. More than the Vatican, more than Mecca, more so even than the Church of the Nativity; the Temple Mount plays a key role in all three of the major monotheistic religions.

But it has a special importance to the Jews. The Christians controlled the Mount for a while during the Crusades, but we never really went back. The Muslims controlled it and built a couple of temples on it, but it is relatively insignificant to the Muslims - Mecca and Medina are far more important. But the Jews, every year for nearly two thousand years - "Next year in Jerusalem."

Jerusalem and the Temple Mount aren't just important to Judaism - they almost are Judaism. The city and the Wall are the physical links to everything in the Jewish history. There is no place else of any real significance in Judaism, just Jerusalem.

Would the Jews survive without Jerusalem? Yes, they did for nearly two millenia. But if something were to happen to their beloved Jerusalem, they would only return to the mantra - "Next year in Jerusalem." And they would find a way to either retake the city if conquered or to rebuild the city if destroyed.

It is the idea of Jerusalem, the home of God on earth, the site of the Temple, and now the site of the Western Wall that is so important to the Jews. Jerusalem represents all that was good and pure and right. Jerusalem is as much an ideal as it is a physical location.

And in all of that, the Temple Mount is the highest ideal in the city. The Temple Mount is everything about Jerusalem raised expotentially. To voluntarily surrender the Temple Mount would be tantamount to voluntarily abandoning the ideals of the Jewish faith.

The Temple Mount is absolutely critical to the Jewish faith. It is a physical representation of that faith. Walking away from it cannot and should not be an option for the Jews.

There cannot be another "Next year in Jerusalem."

Do We Want To Be Like France?

A few days ago, CNN/Money had an article that discussed a gentleman, John De Graaf, who is trying to get the US to switch to a European style labor framework: i.e. a 35 hour workweek, 11 mandatory paid holidays and mandatory vacation time. He asserts that we need to work less in order to improve the quality of life in the US.

I'll agree with the idea that we are overworked, but I don't think that we need new government regulations created in order to rectify the situation. Everything about our capitalist economic system is geared around the idea of opportunity costs. At any point, you have the option of working fewer hours. No one is forcing anyone to work against their will. There is no legal requirement that you must work "x" number of hours in a week. However, if you choose to work fewer hours, there is an opportunity cost associated with that choice. You may not have the opportunity to work your dream job. You may not be able to find a job that pays quite as much, either on an hourly or an absolute basis. But that is a choice you get to make.

Do you want more money and less free time or less free time and more money? The choice is already yours. Do we really want a system that imposes that choice on us? I don't.

I know that some people would put forth the argument that people really are being forced into working more hours by the rising cost of living. That argument doesn't really hold water with me and I'll tell you why.

Most people who are complaining about the rising cost of living are up to their eyeballs in debt, have two brand new cars, just took a new home equity loan and have never bothered to try to live within their means. Too many people aren't being caught up in a rising cost of living as much as they are being caught up in a rising relative cost of debt servicing. For the most part we just carry way too much debt.

All of this goes back to opportunity costs. People aren't being forced to work more hours because of the rising cost of living. They're being forced to work more hours because they mortgaged their own future earnings, and the bills are coming due. The choice was made long ago when the debts were first incurred, the cars bought, or the house refinanced. The effect is one of the complainer's own choosing. They chose to give up free time now in order to spend more then. They may not have consciously thought of it then, but the law of unintended consequences is still a "law" nonetheless. Ignorance, whether willful or not, does not absolve one from the effects of it.

So why do we need a European style labor regulation? We have choices, we have opportunity, and we have created an economy that produces more opportuntiy for those with ambition. Europe, by contrast, has limited choices for employment in good times, an extraordinarily high unemployment rate, minimal to limited opportunity until you're in your mid thirties, and a moribund economy.

Is all that really the model we want to be following?

Quick Links

U.S.: Linguist Took Classified Data to Egypt - How did this guy not realize he had 132 CDs with him? And what is going on in Gitmo anyways? This is getting ridiculous!

Bracelet Fad Among Middle-Schoolers Said Linked to Sex - Maybe if parents spent more time worrying about their kids education instead of worrying about possible sexual innuendo related to jelly bracelets things wouldn't be so bad.

Bragging to police about sex backfires for driver - Some things are better left unsaid and some criminals are just too dense to realize that. This guy is one of them.

What's That Sound?

Hmmm. What's that sound I hear? Might it be the sound of yet another nail being driven into the coffin of the Iranian thugocracy?

This has got to be one of the worst nightmares for the Iranian regime: a woman, who is strong, intelligent, and is now a Nobel Peace Prize winner - all along with the American military playing in the sandbox next door.

In times past, the thugs would have waited for a very short while and then they would have made Mrs. Ebadi "disappear." And soon after that "natural causes" would lead to her "untimely demise."

But that option is no longer available. It worked in the past due to the separation from the rest of the human rights respecting world, but now with the Americans and British within a few hundred miles of Tehran instead of thousands, the game has changed.

And it's a game that the Iranian regime can't react to and can't play.

What's that sound? It's the sound of freedom breaking free.

Cheney, Osama, Saddam & 9/11

The American Standard has an article in their latest issue that takes to task those who are accusing VP Dick Cheney of trying to lie to the American people about a link between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11. Cheney's answer was "We don't know." He might as well of said that he had photos of Saddam and Osama sitting around the campfire nude strumming the banjo, singing Charlie Daniels tunes.

The Standard takes many of the mainstream press writers to task by presenting evidence and by pointing to other potential evidence that no one has examined or questioned, either from within the government or the media.

I'm not so dense as to believe that there is no anti-Bush bias in the media. Anymore, however, it is starting to border, not on bias, but on outright front page activism. There should have been no need for Bush to take his message outside the realm of the mainstream media. He never should have had to take such extraordinary action to avoid distortion and spin. Yet he felt he had to. That is very telling about the state of the political activism and bias of the media today.

The media has had a multitude of articles deploring and questioning the rise of blogs as a news source for many people. They complain about the lack of editorial oversight, the inevitable errors that are made, and of the power of the blogosphere to influence the national debate on any number of issues.

Maybe part of the reason for the rise in the influence of blogs is because most bloggers tend to be very open about their political slant. Bloggers don't pretend to be impartial. We're very partial; we're very committed to our beliefs. But we're also not afraid of being challenged. We're not afraid of being fact-checked. We're not afraid of being confronted with the opposing viewpoint. Quite often, in fact, we search out and link to the opposing viewpoint as a convenience for our readers, so that they can get the whole story and can make an informed decision about our personal stance.

In short, we tend to treat our readers with respect (relatively speaking). We tend to acknowledge that our readers are often times as smart, if not smarter, than ourselves. With a few exceptions, bloggers tend not to put on airs of superiority. Rather we come across with the confidence of conviction (which is often viewed as arrogance and condensation by the wafflers of the world).

Blogs don't hide their intentions. Blogs don't try to cover up their political biases.

That is a large part of the reason why the mainstream press is losing significance in the face of blogs. The media tries to position itself as an impartial reporting organization, yet in its work, it proves otherwise.

"We don't know." Is that a lie? Depends on your point of view. If you believe that all the evidence that could ever be found and examined has been, then yes. It is a lie.

But if you believe that there may be more evidence out there or that all the evidence available has not been completely examined, then no. It is not.

As the author of the Standard article points out, there are other pieces of evidence that deserve review. There are other pieces of evidence that seem to have both been ignored and to have significance to answering the question at hand.

No one appointed the media as judge and jury of the political world. Their position demands that they ask questions to seek out the answer, not that they create the answer by proclamation.

Perhaps one day, that will become clear to them.

Nigerian Scam-Mail Gets More Sophisticated

Well, I got to give the Nigerian crowd a little credit. The standard Scam Mail has been reworked and now sounds a little more official. Now instead of the Tribal Chief contacting me, I've got the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banks and Currency. Makes me feel much more important as I hit the Delete Key.

The contents of the version I received 6 times today is posted below along with some obnoxious commentary by me in italics...

From: JAMES MORGAN [leadermorgan@zensearch.com]
To: coins-request -at -cbnoble.com (a non-existant email I might add)
Subject: I await your response

Dear Sir,

We are a team of Government officials that belong to an eight-man
committee in the Presidential Cabinet as well as the Senate. At the
moment, we will be requiring your assistance in a matter that
involves
investment of monies, which we intend to transfer to your account,
upon
clarification and a workable agreement reached in consummating the
project with you. Based on a recommendation from an associate
concerning
your integrity, loyalty and understanding, we deemed it necessary to
contact you accordingly. (Their associate obviously doesn't know me very well, now do he?)

All arrangements in relation to this investment initiative, as well
as
the Initial Capital for its take off has been tactically set aside
to
commence whatever business you deemed fit, that will turn around
profit
favourably. We request you immediately contact us if you will be
favorably disposed to act as a partner in this venture, and possibly
will afford us the opportunity to discuss whatever proposal you may
come
up with. Also bear in mind that the initial capital that we shall
send
across will not exceed $13,731,000,00USD (Thirteen Million Seven
Hundred
and Thirty One Thousand United States Dollars) so whatever areas of
investment your proposal shall cover, please it should be within the
set
aside capital. (Well, there goes my plan. I needed $13,800,000.00USD)

In this regard, the proposal you may wish to discuss with us should
be
comprehensive enough for our better understanding; with special
emphasis
on the following:

1.The tax obligation in your country (You pay it all. We call it soak the stupid)
2.The initial capital base required in your proposed investment
area,
as well as (Already told you, $13,800,000.00);
3.The legal technicalities in setting up a business in your country
with foreigners as share-holders (I'm going to set up an airline so that you can't own too much.)
4.The most convenient and secured mode of receiving the funds
without
our direct involvement. (Unmarked $20s, $50s, and $100s would work just fine thank you. I'll let you know as soon as I arrange the drop points.)
5. Your ability to provide a beneficiary/ partnership account with a
minimal deposit, where we shall transfer the funds into subsequently. (I'll open the account with a $1 balance and demand that the bank refuse any wire transfer requests to or from anywhere)

Another area that we wish to explicitly throw more light on, is the
process we have conceived in transferring the funds into the account
you
shall be providing. Since we are the owners of the funds, and the
money
will be leaving the apex bank of my country, we shall purposefully
fulfill the legal obligations precedent to transferring such huge
amount
of funds, without arousing suspicion from any quarter as a drug or
terrorist related funds; and this will assist us in the long run to
forestall any form of investigations. Remember that, on no account
must
we be seen or perceived to be directly connected with the transfer of
funds. You will be the one to be doing all these, and in the course
of
transfer, if for any reason whatsoever, you incurred some bills, we
shall adequately retire same, upon the successful confirmation of the
funds in your account. (Yeah. The Feds will never notice an extra $13,000,000 in my account that normally has a balance measured in three figures - including the pennies. Nothing abnormal about that!)

The commencement of this project is based on your ability to convince
us
of the need to invest in whatever business you have chosen, and to
trust
your personality and status, especially as it concerns the security
of
the funds in your custody.

I await your response.

Sincerely,

Mr. James Morgan

(Chairman Senate Committee on Banks and Currency)

The Cockroaches Scurry From The Light

One of the advantages of sitting in the tent is that I get to listen to the AM radio. Today, while listening, I caught a quick blurb about a terrorist attack in Gaza that killed three American bodyguards.

All of the usual suspects realize that this is just about the worst possible situation event that could have happened. Arafat has referred to it as an "awful crime." Hamas and Hezbollah have both tried to distance themselves as much as possible, claiming that they do not deliberately attack Americans.

Well of course they're going to distance themselves from this. Of course they're go to deplore the attack. Someone, I think it was one of the PA ministers, complained that this attack was going to set back the Palestinian cause significantly. And they're right. It will set back the cause.

The Americans have been leaning on Israel for years. We have tried to force Israel to act contrary to their own interest. We have encouraged Israel to deliberately endanger themselves in the name of "peace." In the fight for the Palestinian State, America has been the most effective friend that the Palestinian clan has had. We have been more effective than the Soviet Union, more effective than Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and even more effective than the EU. We have accomplished more than any of the wars of Arab aggression, more than any of the terrorist attacks, and more than any of the trite anti-Israeli embargoes being conducted by the Arabs or their friends.

To attack us would be to attack the only real, effective friend that the Palestinian people. To attack us or inflame us would be to unleash the full, unrestrained fury of the IDF on the terrorists. A deliberate attack on us would leave as the greatest Palestinian weapon the dreaded EU scowl of disapproval. The Palestinian Statehood movement would become as relevant as the Mexican Separatists Of The Greater Southern Region Of Northern South Dakota Statehood movement.

Given all that, is it any wonder that Arafat and the "charitable" organizations of Palestine are running scared from this? They know that this is the worst of all possible worlds for them. They know that fessing up would mean the end of their attempts at legitimization.

To the total number of dead in the conflict, we now add three more Americans, deliberately murdered. At what point will the Americans decide "enough is enough?" Israel has already decided it and is ready to take decisive action. Are we?

A Modest Proposal For Amtrak

Last day of the Chris-bake in the tent at work. Yea! Although it has finally cooled off some, temperature is right around 70, there's a decent breeze blowing in from the east and it's fairly dry. All in all, it's the kind of day that makes the folks up north want to move down here.

On Monday as I was sitting out here I watched one of the southbound Amtrak trains go rolling by. But I noticed something different about this one. It had a big placard on the baggage car. Just a big picture of Amtrak's stylized train in the mountains logo that they sometimes use. But it set me to thinking that there might be a way to reduce the revenue shortfall for Amtrak, if not eliminate it altogether.

Perhaps, instead of simply painting the cars with some variation of the three line, red/white/blue scheme (there are something like six separate variations so far), they should try to see the rights to the side of the car for advertising.

Cities along the system could buy the rights to advertise their city on the cars. National companies like IBM, GE, GM, Ford or AT&T could buy national advertising for their products. The rail cars could be considered to be like 89-foot rolling billboards.

Bus companies, like our local one in Orlando, already do this. Airlines have done it, although with the airlines it is done infrequently due to weight concerns. Why haven't Amtrak or the railroads (they could do it with regular freight cars also) tried to implement some kind of revenue generation from this?

I don't know exactly how many cars Amtrak has, but let's assume 500 nationwide: 300 single level cars and 200 bilevel Superliner cars. I'm guessing that they could probably sell the rights to a single level car for $100,000 year, $200,000 for a Superliner. That would raise nearly $70 million a year. I realize that it's not quite the amount that Amtrak claims it is falling short revenuewise, but it's a start.

The effects would probably be greater, as I believe that Amtrak has more than 500 cars and that they could probably receive more revenue per car which would only serve to increase the effectiveness of this proposal.

Service-wise, it would affect the operations of the railroad at all. The cars would still need to be cleaned and still need to be maintained. The passengers would still be able to see out the windows to watch the world going by.

But more importantly, prospects would be intrigued. They would pay more attention to the trains as they sat at a crossing. A few - not many, but a few - would probably decide to take the train next time they traveled. It's a little more incremental revenue and Amtrak needs all of that it can get.

Amtrak and the railroads, I guessing, how already looked at something like this and probably rejected it as being beneath the dignity and tradition of the railroads. They're afraid to think outside the box. They're afraid of demeaning the dignity of the railroading tradition, which has been plain and understated since the days of the beer cars and dairy cars of the teens and twenties.

Unfortunately, they'll be dignified, but unemployed. Desperate times call for innovative measures. Too bad that they don't measure up to the challenge.

Quick Links

Library books burned by court order - Where they burn books.....

Roddey says discount airline, 500 jobs coming to Pittsburgh - Wild guess here. I'll bet that three of the destinations will be Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and Orlando. Hey! Maybe a job opportunity for me!

This is a test

I think I just got the site switched over to MySQL, but I need to run a quick test post just to check.

So, here's the test!

UPDATE: Looks like it worked! Hopefully this will make the site more stable and a little quicker with posting comments and such.

Can I Be Homeless?

Gee, here's a deal that needs to be offered to me: Arabs in Rafiach were being paid $1000 a month for the right to be made "homeless" by the IDF and to get a new house, in a better neighborhood, paid for by the Palestinian Authority. All they have to do is to allow a few illegal arms to be smuggled through tunnels in their homes. The PA, being the personal little fiefdom of that renowned Nobel winning terrorist Arafat, was, of course, allowing these weapons to only be used in self-defense - like when a Hamas or Hezbollah "charity worker" feels threatened by an infant Israeli (They have good reason to fear Israeli babies, as all baby buggies are now little mobile weapons caches</sarcasm>.).

I'm sorry, but I really have trouble feeling bad for people whose greatest goal in life seems to be getting their house razed for propaganda purposes, knowing that they will end up in a house that is probably nicer than mine. I have trouble feeling sorry for these poor, homeless arms smugglers who were netting an extra grand a month in a place where that's a king's ransom. I have problems with the "woe is me" claims, when they're really issues of their own making.

$1000 a month to claim professional victimhood status. What a deal.

The Right To Privacy

Earlier today, while waiting for the plumber to show up and fix the main sewer pipe at our house, I came across and interesting article about the importance of marriage.

The underlying premise of the article, the importance of the institution of marriage, is one that I agree with. However, I disagree quite a bit with the comments of Senator Rick Santorum and his assertation that the right to privacy is a manufactured right.

The "general welfare" is not about individual gain, said Santorum, but about the common good-what is beneficial to all Americans. In contrast, the so-called "right to privacy," which has been at the heart of many of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, has only self-interest in mind. The right to privacy-which is not even in the Constitution, but rather has been "found" by an activist court-started with the sexual revolution and has led to many so-called "rights" that are similarly self-centered. These include abortion and, now, with the Supreme Court's recent Lawrence decision, the right to any form of consensual sex. Santorum called the right to privacy a "me-centered" right.

I'll bypass the collectivization tone of that comment for now, as that is not really what I want to focus on. I want to look at the "right to privacy" and why it is not a found right, but like many other unwritten rights, it is addressed in the Constitution. Or more specifically, it is found in the Bill of Rights (how appropriate):

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I'll grant Senator Santorum that nowhere in the Constitution did the framers come out and explicitly say "The people will have a right or reasonable expectation of privacy." The Fourth Amendment, I believe, implies that citizens do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since the Constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of privacy anywhere, and therefore asserting governmental control over that right, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in effect reserve the right to privacy to the people. Maybe it's not as direct as Santorum thinks it should be, but there is a basis for the right belonging to the people.

Our nation was founded in part on the ideal of individual liberty. Individual liberty implies that people will act in their own best interest. You can call it selfish; you can call it "me-centered." But it is part of who we are culturally. We want to be individuals. Individualism requires privacy. It also requires a rejection of the collectivization being promoted by Santorum.

For some reason Santorum has never been one of my favorites. At times, like this demonstrates, he tends to act like a big government Democrat wrapped in family values and compassionate conservatism. He doesn't seem to accept the idea that individual liberty leads to individual accomplishment, which leads to an improvement in the general welfare.

I'll buy his argument that marriage promotes the general welfare and that it's good for society. I don't agree with his continuation that promoting male/female marriages is necessarily an affirmation of the founder's intent. For someone who is complaining about the "activist" court "finding" a right to privacy, I find it awfully ironic that he professes to know the position of the founders in respect to gay marriage, family values and the common good. It sounds like he's reading as much into the founders as the Court is reading into the Constitution.

Slight Change To The Site

If you haven't already noticed, I've changed the ordering of my blogroll to show the most recently updated blogs first, instead of in alphabetical order. I did this to try to make better use of my limited blogging time.

I just figured I'd mention it before someone decided to start complaining that I had delinked them or something (which I have not done to anyone. Yet).

A Money Making Opportunity

Man, I think I just found the ultimate money making opportunity: wholesaling Ghettopoly.

A while back I had posted a link to a very short article about the game and since then I have been inundated with search engine referrers for "Ghettopoly" and "wholesaling Ghettopoly".

Today, I guess MSN made me the top link when searching for the game because I have gotten 40-50 referrals looking for it (for comparison, I normally only get three to five referrals for any one term in a twenty-four hour period).

Sounds like there is a great money making opportunity in here somewhere!

Rush To Judgment, Rehab & Review

This morning I had a rare opportunity to listen to Neal Boortz while I was at work. His primary topic this morning was, of course, the Rush Limbaugh drug issue (can be found here on the 13th). Listening to the show, I thought that Boortz had two good questions - ones that no one seemed willing to attempt to answer. First, he asked if Rush should be sent to jail for his illicit purchasing. The second question was whether or not this should be a basis for revisiting the war on drugs.

Boortz's point with the first question was to expose the hypocrisy of many of the dittoheads who want to see the crackhead down the street locked away for years, while their hero goes free. And a few fell for it. They promoted the idea of treatment and intervention. They expressed sorrow and shame, but they avoided taking the hardline "throw away the key" stance that many conservatives are notorious for (a somewhat unfair characterization, but the rise of compassionate conservatism lends credence to the idea).

Apparently, the federal penalty for the illegal procurement of narcotics is up to twenty years in jail. Now Rush didn't steal from anyone (no political cheap shots here) and he didn't cause physical harm anyone other than himself. Was it a stupid move? Yes, it most certainly was. Does the punishment fit the crime? No, not really. It seems a bit extreme to me. That being said, if the crime calls for imprisonment, then Rush needs to serve his time, just like anyone else. He is no more above the law than anyone else.

Now there are some things about this situation that make it different than the crackhead down the street scenario. Rush only harmed himself. He publicly admitted to having a problem. He voluntarily placed himself in rehab. Rush has been proactive towards the situation. When it comes time for any sentencing that may be in his future, these factors need to be taken into account. But they are not reason for cutting him some sort of a special deal.

So is it time to revisit the whole war on drugs? I think we need to at least look at the end results to see if we're achieving our goals. So what do we have?

We have a situation where first time non-violent offenders are going to the pen instead of to rehab where they would be better served. We have a situation where violent criminals walk free to create more room for the guy who was trying to buy Xanax on the street. We have a situation where violent drug related crime is rising, while the quantity and quality of the drugs available continues to increase. Is this a success? I don't think so.

Boortz kept referring to a Rand study from 1994 (a synopsis, along with ordering information, can be found here), supposedly rejected by the Clinton Administration, which proved rehabilitation and treatment to be the most effectively spent money in the fight against drugs. I haven't had a chance to read through the study for myself, but it seems to be in agreement with my own beliefs: targeting the suppliers doesn't work - they're a dime a dozen, targeting the users for punishment doesn't work - it goes back to the coarsening of our society, we are afraid of intellectual pursuits, so the quick and easy high provided by drugs is considered acceptable by many, and finally rehab, which has a relatively high recidivism rate, is still the best of three poor options for correcting the problem.

I'm no big fan of Rush. I generally find him to be a little too far out to the right for my tastes. Despite that, I still respect him for the strength of his beliefs. I still appreciate what he has done for the conservative movement.

I am also disappointed in his action. More than probably anyone else, he should have known that his Oxycontin addiction would be fodder for the left and an opportunity for the left to discredit the conservative message by discrediting its most articulate messenger. For being such an active political player, I would have expected him to be more astute.

In the end, however, Rush is simply human. He is a man, no better and no worse than any of the rest of us. He is fallible, as this episode proves. If there is a punishable crime here, he needs to accept his punishment and move on.

As evidenced by his admission of a problem and his action in checking himself into rehab, he knows that he did wrong. He has taken the first step in rebuilding his now sullied reputation. The question still remains as to whether or not he can carry through to completion on the rest of the steps.

Only time will tell.

Coarsening Of Language

This morning on my way into work, I noticed a new billboard along the side of I-4. It was an advertisement for some kind of new chip dip. No big deal, except for the name of the dip: Heluva Good.

Now the name in and of itself is no big deal. Let's face it, the phrase "helluva" has become very commonplace in today's society.

But it is representative of a coarsening in society. We are no longer willing to use the full richness of the English language. It seems like people are no longer willing to learn how to speak without using foul language. Curses are used in place of actual thought.

Certainly no one is immune to this trend. I try not to use foul language whenever possible, but on occasion I slip, or like the other day in my response to an Atlanta Journal Constitution article, I use it for stronger emphasis than italics or bold type provides.

I don't see the problem getting better anytime soon. I noted a few weeks back that the kids coming out of high school today don't seem to have a vocabulary that contains many words in excess of four letters. They are also, almost to a kid, unwilling to read anything more than absolutely necessary as they view reading as boring or waste of time, especially since it requires imagination and thought, whereas TV - their favorite medium - does not.

The real shame of all this is that it is creating an American aristocratic elite. The elite are those who are educated and well spoken. The underclass will be those who cannot communicate effectively whether it be by linguistic barriers or a lack of vocabulary. Too many people are throwing away their opportunities.

Language is not just a tool, it is the most important tool that we have in becoming successful. Without the ability to communicate, a genius is wasted. Without the ability to communicate, the average person is wasted. A lack of language skills is a great equalizer - it makes everyone equally inferior and makes society less rich and life less fulfilling.

That's a helluva a lot of consequence for allowing the coarsening of society and the degradation of our language.

George Bernard Shaw said the Americans and the English are two people separated by a common language. Rapidly, the Americans are becoming internally a people separated by the English language.

Carnival Of The Capitalists

The first ever Carnival of the Capitalists is up over at BusinessPundit. Looks like it is chock full of capitalist blogging goodness.

Next week's CotC will be hosted by Jay Solo. He is currently soliciting submissions: email them to capitalists - at - elhide.com

Touching The Third Rail

This may seem a bit disjointed as it was written over the course of three days sitting in outside in a tent in the Florida sun, baking my brain. If so, I apologize.

You know, I read articles like the one I recently noted about the NAACP complaining about the "Caucasian Club" that some high school student wanted to start and I begin to ask myself: just how much of an issue is racism, and will we ever fully eliminate it?

Now I'm not trying to deny that racism exists, or to claim that it isn't a problem, I just question whether or not it's as serious as groups like the NAACP or MEChA would like us to believe. I also question if the true problem is still white on black racism, or if it has shifted.

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the country has made significant progress in the realm of white on black racism. Even in the Deep South, it is no longer acceptable social practice to call someone a "nigger" or a "darkie" or any of the other racial epitaphs that used to be part of the everyday vocabulary - even of the little kids. Racially based jury nullifications are nearly non-existent anymore. The Klan has gone from being a social institution viewed in the same light as the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army to being a group that is vilified just slightly less than the Nazi Party. Lynchings have become so uncommon as to be a huge event when they do happen. Blacks are no longer prejudicially dismissed as job applicants due to their skin color. In those regards, and many others, things have significantly improved.

Of course, there are still some folks who have no clue when it comes to racial harmony. There are still some white folks who view every black as a mugger, a thief or a rapist. There are still some white folks who would deny even the existence of a black person based solely on the color of their skin. We certainly have not achieved anything near nirvanic perfection, but we're also not in a time of open and violent racism either.

But what about the reverse, black on white racism? Where do we stand on that?

I don't think that we're really making progress in that arena. In fact, I believe that an argument could be made that we are actually regressing.

To give an example, my kids ride a small little school bus with maybe 15 kids total. Out of those 15 kids, 9 are black. Now we really don't care that 9 of the kids are black. Every morning I still bring the kids down to get on the bus to go to school. We figure that it's healthy for them. Gives them an opportunity to interact with other kids who may be of a different background than ours. Sounds great right?

Well, it is - sometimes. We have a real problem, however, with one of the black parents who is hyper sensitive to any perceived racist comment. She has accused every white child on the bus of being a racist bigot (understand that most of these kids are haven't made it to the third grade yet). The other day, a first grader was telling a friend on the bus that a seat was a "white seat." Now, as it turns out, the seat has White Out on it. But this parent, rather than maybe discreetly saying something to the offender's parents, went off the chain. She got up on the front step of the bus after everyone was on and proceeded to scream at and berate the kids on the bus for being racist. She riled up one of the black fathers to the point that he got on the bus and was pounding on the handrail while screaming at the kids. And then, as the bus left, both of the screamers were standing there laughing, presumably at the hilariousness of their terrification of the kids.

And it's not as if we're in a position to be able to go to the school and register a complaint about this. These parents have already gone to the school claiming racism on the bus. If we complain, then the kids suffer the consequences of being labeled by the school as racist kids in need of intervention, which they most certainly are not. Heck, they're just barely old enough to consciously realize that there is a difference in pigmentation between them and some of the other kids. We try to do everything we can to raise them with good judgment, but without prejudice. But now we can't feel comfortable putting our kids on the school bus in the morning, not because of racism, but because they might unfairly be branded as racists, a tag which would be long lasting in the school system around here.

Of course, this is all just based on personal observation. Maybe I've been affected by the one bad apple of the bunch, but I kind of doubt it. Certainly not all blacks are racist any more than all whites are, but I do believe that the problem is more prevalent than some people would like to admit.

I believe that part of the reason for the rise in black on white racism is due to the unintended consequences of affirmative action. Some blacks, as characterized by the NAACP, feel as though everything is due to them - that they have an entitlement to special favor. But in an ironic way, by demanding and receiving these entitlements, they are only perpetuating many of the stereotypes that lead to racism.

I recently read an article (I'll try to track it down again) which pointed out that the federal government employs blacks almost three times as frequently as demographics would indicate that they should. But generally, the blacks in the government tend to hold the lower level positions, while the whites (who are the most significantly underrepresented demographic in the federal government) tend to rise to management positions more rapidly. Think about the unconscious effect that this might have.

Certainly we are all aware of the real and perceived ineptitude of federal employees. We've all at some point ran into an unaccountable front line government employee who either provides flat out wrong information, misleading information, or answers a question we never asked while ignoring the one we did. Often times when they provide this erroneous information, they do so with a command of the English language that is normally only associated with the ghetto. Quite often, it is easy to identify the black government employees simply from their dialect.

And generally, when you do complain, you end up speaking to a manager who is white.

The end effect is a subconscious reinforcement of the stereotype that the front line blacks mess things up and that the whites in management are there to clean up the mistakes and make things right. You also have a subconscious reinforcement of servitude, that the whites are the group that is in control and that the blacks are there simply to serve the wishes and desires of the whites.

There are certainly more than a few blacks who don't fit this profile, just as there are more than a few whites who don't either. But the unintended consequence of the hiring of blacks out of proportion in the federal government is to create exactly this type of environment.

But all in all, I don't really view black/white racism as a huge issue these days. I see there being more a of problem with Hispanic racism, both against and by.

I can only comment on the Hispanics I see here in Florida, which are primarily either Cuban or Puerto Rican. And I must also preface this by pointing out that there are huge differences in the degree of racism found among Hispanics. Some are nearly as colorblind as Martin Luther King's dream envisioned; others can make the Klan look like the Rotary Club. The degree of variation found within the Hispanic community, I believe, points to the fact that the ideas of integration, assimilation and racial harmony are relatively new concepts as compared to the blacks and the whites. They will eventually achieve the same degree of harmonization as whites and blacks currently enjoy, but it is going to take some time to achieve.

For Hispanics, the biggest impediment to racial harmony that I see is the absolute refusal to use the English language except when absolutely necessary. Their use of Spanish in any setting, regardless of the type of company in that setting, is one of the worst Balkanizers in America today. There are many Hispanics who are segregating themselves willingly by refusing to adapt to the general society.

Nations that are divided cannot thrive and have trouble being able to survive. The private industry boom of the last 30-40 years is due not only to technological advances, but is also partially attributable to the fact that black/white racism was reduced allowing for a more efficient use of intellectual resources. The federal government and its inborn inefficiency, is a beautiful case study for what happens when institutionalized racism - of any type - is allowed to persist.

Our biggest racist obstacle facing us today as a society is racism for or against Hispanics. And the potential damage to our society is even greater than it has been in the past because we are not only dividing along pigmentation lines, but we are also beginning to divide among linguistic lines. Rome may have become reached its zenith as a multi-lingual empire, but no world player since has successfully been able to negotiate the associated issues. Canada has probably handled the issues best and they are still wracked every few years by a Quebecois separatist movement. Linguistic separatism is the solvent that dissolves the bonds of societal unity.

I'm not trying to slam the diversity movements or the "save our cultures" crowd. Both have some very valid uses and our society is made richer by assimilation of diverse viewpoints and the selective adaptation of the strengths of other cultures. They only help to make our own culture that much better, that much stronger and that much more resilient.

It is when those movements morph over into racist movements that I have a problem wit